3 ms·
> Poor UI design (3 different places to set prefs?) is orthogonal to the issue of whether or not something should be configurable. That's not how you use the
by erlanger 16y ago
> Poor UI design (3 different places to set prefs?) is orthogonal to the issue of whether or not something should be configurable.
That's not how you use the word. Even if it were, I would still dispute your argument, because configuration clearly must happen through a user interface of some sort.
- dandelany 16y agoThis is a perfectly valid use of the word. In a purely technical sense, orthogonal means "intersecting or lying at right angles". But it can also mean "mutually independent, non-redundant, non-overlapping, or irrelevant" in the context of everyday conversation. And you're missing the point. Obviously configuration must happen through a UI, but OP is saying that more preferences don't necessitate poor UI design, and I absolutely agree.
- mindcrime 16y agobut OP is saying that more preferences don't necessitate poor UI design This. And also that you could have the "right" number of preferences (if such a thing exists) and still have a crappy UI. IOW, UI quality and number of preferences vary independently.
- nitrogen 16y agoSomeone please communicate this to the Gnome designers.
- erlanger 16y agoI am well aware of the meaning of the word, but it's nonsense if you use it to describe a practice on one side, and a condition on the other. Further, "doesn't necessarily imply" is quite another thing from "is completely unrelated to." To say that available user options and user interface design are perpendicular to one another is silly.